May 31st, 2006, 08:00 PM
what really does happen.
What would really happen if an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?
May 31st, 2006, 08:35 PM
I'm sorry, the question is flawed, I cannot compute.
Do you mean, "In a universe where such a thing as an unstoppable force coexists with an unmovable object, what would happen if they were to come into contact" ?
Well, chances are the laws of physics would break, end of that universe.
May 31st, 2006, 08:45 PM
I should have been more clear that I meant in theory. There is really no right or wrong answer. break the laws of physics and the end of the universe, thats good. I would say the most powerful reaction possible would occur, but thats just my 2 cents.
May 31st, 2006, 10:36 PM
isn't it an 'irresistable force' ?
meeting an 'immovable' obect
resultant = total destruction
55 - I'm fiftyfeckinfive and STILL no wiser,
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone
May 31st, 2006, 10:58 PM
naw they would cancell each other out. As both are infinit in the way the question is asked they resultant vector would be zero.
Maybe I should be posting in the we are drunk thread
\"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
\"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
June 1st, 2006, 04:07 AM
If something unstoppable hit something unmovable most likely an explosion of some sort would occur, it was stated above that " the most powerful reaction possible would occur" but how can that even be measured? if it was the most powerful reaction possible we would have nothing to measure it with if we were still alive
June 1st, 2006, 05:07 AM
Since the question implies an impossible contradiction,
the answer lies in language, not physics.
To an irresistable force, there are no immovable objects.
An immovable object cannot be moved by any force.
An irresistable force cannot meet an immovable object.
They can't both simultaneously exist, much less meet.
because it would be a logical contradiction. A cannot be
both A and non A.
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
June 1st, 2006, 05:12 AM
The hacker's dictionary describes an answer for questions like this and others like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
basically it means "I cannot answer your question because it is based upon a false premise"
One item's mass or momentum is going to be greater than the others, so something is either going to stop or something else is going to get moved.
"Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot
June 1st, 2006, 07:26 AM
There would be a bloody big, mutually destructive bang
As has been mooted, the two are mutually contradictory, so the only resolution would be mutual destruction. Both would cease to exist, and the contradiction with them.
June 1st, 2006, 10:39 AM
irresistable + immovable = unthinkable
It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...